Planners around the globe are eagerly anticipating the World Urban
Forum in Vancouver in 2006. Marking the thirtieth anniversary of the
Habitat conference, it will be a time to reflect on the contributions
that planning has made, and to examine priorities now facing the
profession and the constituencies with whom it works. The Association of
Canadian University Planning Programs, the Canadian Institute of
Planners and the Institute of Urban Studies of the University of
Winnipeg support the Forum with the publication of this second annual
issue of Canadian Planning and Policy--Amenagement et politique au
Canada. The call for papers was issued with the intention of fostering
discussion of the Forum themes: the secure city, capacity building, the
learning city, the liveable city and the uncertain city. The papers
included in this journal constitute the results.

It turns out that the call for papers led to a call for action: the
work presented here speaks from the view that planning is at a crucial
stage, and urges the adoption of a variety of programmatic measures. The
context is set through Jeanne Wolfe's thoughtful obituary of Harold
Spence-Sales, founding director of the planning school at McGill.
Reflection on his significant career links back to the burgeoning growth
of planning in the period following World War 2, bringing to mind images
of purposeful optimism in a profession--in a nation--marshalling
energies towards provision of living environments and services for a
population undergoing unprecedented expansion and urbanization.

In hindsight, the sense of direction and unified action
characteristic of planning in the early post-war period hindered
awareness of social differences. It obscured the view of society in
Canada, and in many economically advanced nations, as a tapestry of many
diverse pieces, to invoke the imagery conveyed by Kristina Nordstrom in
her cover design. The rich and textured nature of society was repressed
in planning thinking by the predominant assumptions of sameness and
homogeneity, expressed in terminology such as the 'common
good' and 'public interest.' Many planners, taking
guidance from this view of social coherence, saw their role as one of
defining the public interest in relation to every planning issue and
giving it expression in plans for social action.

The work grouped in the section Diversity and Difference in
Planning explores just how problematic these conceptualizations can be.
The papers come from Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in
the world, and while in a sense they relate to that particular setting,
readers will find that the critical analyses and the recommendations fit
well with experiences elsewhere. Goonewardena, Rankin and Weinstock draw
on contemporary social criticism to conceptualise diversity in Canada
and to situate planning in that complex context. They then focus on
planning education, reporting on efforts to diversify planning schools
in Ontario, and recommending actions for the Canadian Institute of
Planners, the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs and
individual planning schools. Rahder and Milgrom share some of these
concerns and critically examine how contemporary planning theory has
begun to make space for social differences in planning processes. They
argue, however, that communicative action, an approach that has gained
some credibiiity as an emergent paradigm over recent years, does not
sufficiently provide for intercultural relations; and they argue for
planners to embrace notions of redistributive justice. Their paper also
provides recommendations for the reform of planning education. The final
piece in the Difference and Diversity section is an invited comment by
Beth Moore Milroy, who gives support to the overall concerns of the
papers and provides useful context. She does this by taking us through
replies to several ostensibly innocuous questions, honing in on such key
themes as role, substance and consequence; and by elaborating concepts
of equity and justice that can move planning forward.

The next two papers illustrate how much difference and diversity
really do matter by drawing our attention to contemporary issues of
social polarization. Murray's piece traces recent shifts in federal
policy. Social programs elaborated in the period of post-war optimism
emphasised that protection from risks of unemployment, ill health and
many other dislocations in industrialised society is a collective
concern. The recent policy shifts consolidate a denial of the systematic
basis of needs for these services and designate people who are
marginalised through their exclusion from mainstream social and economic
life as vulnerable populations, to be cared for by local communities,
and as threats to the social order. The piece by Grant, Greene and
Maxwell describes experiences in Canada with gated communities as an
emerging living arrangement, and underscores the lack of policy in
relation to this residential form. Many issues require that planners
give attention to gated enclaves, including privatization of urban
facilities, connectivity of the urban fabric and social cohesion. The
final paper is a research note in which Fraser and Mabee investigate the
transfer of ecological theory to the assessment of vulnerability in
urban systems.

To fashion coherence in public policy in face of diversity and
difference requires careful rearrangement of planning priorities. The
work represented in this journal is offered to further the debate. In
closing, it remains to express thanks to the Canadian Journal of Urban
Research as the host publication, the three organizations supporting the
project, and the many anonymous referees from planning schools and
related disciplines across the country. Special thanks go to Michelle
Swanson and Jino Distasio of the Institute of Urban Studies.